tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 11, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am EST
it leads to security event you a. even a christian, now today, when he says that muslims should not be part of this community or should not come here, has a fear that is actually telling him that an extremist will not he is eradicated by waging war of hate , but by having muslim and islam out lied to conquer fear by promoting moderation and reconciliation in the midst of crisis and conflict. when moderates keep silent, extremists claim they are right. a bystander.e i speak to an ole fear and to
break the wall of silence. i am a moderate. >> at good. thank you very much. pose a couple of questions. first, now that you have heard how mohammed has explained his view of moderation, i will just mention a couple of words in his definition. rational, progressive, humanistic, believer of diversity, pluralism, a quality. is this how you view moderation? where does that stand between moderation and reformism? are we talking about definitions? >> first of all, i do not see this as a semantic debate. i see this as a practical discussion about reality.
when professor talked about moderation it with the errors that you just gave us, i'd buy it. i love it. i think it is wonderful. and, in theory, therefore, in theory -- i would be a moderate. moderateeality is that they do not behave in weight you have just described. this is a vision, professor, that you have a nuncio before all of us. it is a beautiful vision and i believe we will get there is a critical mass of muslims. we will get there. but we are not there precisely inause moderates do not act pluralistic ways. in ways that humanize all kinds of people. in ways that give equal value
and equal treatment to the lives of people other they end their own group. i think what this comes down to a something that's martin luther king, junior, pointed out when he was having to encounter tepid liberals in the south. that in times of moral crisis, moderation is a copout. and, what he meant was that when a system of belief that has the andntial to be wise tolerant and mature, when that system of belief has become so opposite ofo be the what it was meant to be, then being moderate in the way that
you described well not swing it the pendulum back to wisdom and maturity and health. rather, one has to be what he called radical. what i would call reformist. this tohe was saying those in the united states south in agreement with him that segregation, segregation racially, was wrong. but rather they and all of these protests and demonstrations and calls for justice now, they wanted to take it slowly. -- moderate supplanted to the moderates wanted to be incremental in ending segregation.
martin luther king pointed out that the impact of injustice is not incremental. it is heavy. it is urgent. that is why we have to take a more -- again, what he called radical approach to ending racial segregation. i would argue that in the same vein, we as muslims need to take a reformist approach to ending the injustices that we see happening in the name of our religion. in, when we do, we will not get to a point of utopia. we will get to a point of moderation. describing the process. the process of reform. you are describing, in my view, the destination. the destination is, indeed, a
humanistic, kind, loving, compassionate, merciful islam. but we are not going to get doing actsy by not of terror. we're going to get there by aanding up, by vocalizing pluralistic vision of islam, and this is key, by taking the backlash that you have taken and i have taken from our peers and our elders and sometimes our own families. it, that is what stops most moderates from becoming, in their hearts, though they may be reformers, from becoming those reformers. the cousin is the fear of busting out of groupthink and out of dogma.
the personal consequence and cost that it takes. that is why we see, behind moderatesrs, many saying the kinds of things you are saying, but in public they are on script. they will condemn israel. they will condemn america. they will condemn india for kashmir and all sorts of others. are loath to point to even one finger at ourselves as muslims. in own up to the fact that we, as muslims, are responsible. for what is happening in the name of our faith today. again, i want to emphasize this is changing. in, you know, anybody who follow thatl media will attest young people, young muslims today, do not use the word moderate to describe themselves. they are increasingly using the
our ward. d. the r wor reform. so i think, professor, those using the word reform to describe ourselves, we are wanting to get to your destination, but like martin luther king, junior, we do not believe that an absence of tension will get us there. we have to work and create the construct of tension to achieve the presence of justice. robert: lahore,, powerful argument. that to achieve this goal of moderation you have to be a nadja tator. almost radical. the term that you used from reformist.er king's does one also have to be radical, reformist, to achieve
the objectives you outlined? mohammed: it when i was reading the first book, i came across a story that she has mentioned in which she talks about her being iset and as president, shoe young in high school, she was elected president of the class. and then she brought these photos of ayatollah khomeini and put them there. and the supervisor came and saw them and said, you should put them down. have not appropriate to them. so, she said, why? when iremember that's was also elected president of the american university in president of the student council, i also brought to a picture of jake of era,
chen, and put it in -- of lenin, and the president saw them and asked me to put them down. i asked the same question, why? but we are moved on from there. now she mentions martin luther .ing, who is also my hero along with gandhi. i put down the pictures of che g uevera and put up the picture of martin luther king and gandhi. however, i also believe in the , jews of this rabbi who came to him regarding a festering conflict between them and when the first said his side more right,, it was and when the second told his
side of the story, he said, you are also right. and then when they left, the wife looked at him and said, but rabbi how can they both be right? and the rabbi said wisely, you are also right. [laughter] and then one rabbi explained to it is she was upset, because usually the rabbi gets money from the one who loses. noif both wins, there is money there. so that is why she was somewhat upset. anyway, the point is, i believe worked for south africa might not work here. might not work. -- we should see things as they are and then we should learn from other experiences. but we should not copy them because they might not work. for instant, there is a lot of
israelout boycotting because of what happened for south africa. which i believe is wrong because i think that we should boycott givingwho are anti- palestinian rights. or who arere against pro-occupation. for those who do not believe in collaboration or coexistence. you do not boycott the whole entity, those who are supporting the cause and to those who are against the cause. basically, what worked for south africa will not work in our case, in israel and palestine. s.at is why i am against bd that is why a believed i had clogged is the answer. maybe that was the -- that is
why i believe dialogue is the answer in our case. that to iin the sense believe that in trying to reach out to the other, we need to bring the good in the other. withis what i am against trump and his speeches where he is trying, like mccarthy before him, he is trying to bring the evil in the individual. he is not trying to bring the good. in his appeal, he might make -- disaster.ring -- actually, this is what happened in rwanda. cause theio protest whole mess occur of hundreds of thousands of people within four months. this is what happened in germany
in the holocaust. it was actually the incitement, the continued incitement against jews that cause, eventually, to erupt into the holocaust. the holocaust did not happen in a vacuum. similarly, the rwandan massacres to not happen in a vacuum. in this way, we have to be very careful about what we say and what we do. that is why i believe in balance. i believe if we adopt balance and whatever we do, whatever we say, then we will be able to other and be the able to resolve conflicts within a balanced view. leeing ourselves, like harper's and in the novel, "to to whereckingbird," the skin of the other and see
the point of view of the other. that is why i believe the israeli-palestinian conflict will be resolve one we do that. that is my hope. that is why when people ask me, are you optimistic or pessimistic, why aren't you when you see what is happening, why are you still optimistic? i see you are looking at the present. i am viewing the future. that is why a remain optimistic and that is what i hope will happen in dealing with this conflict. that is why a remain moderate. just add quickly, i want to echo and applaud the professors condemnation of latesttrump's statements. there will be more, i am sure. -- banningng muslims incoming muslims from the united states. i recognize that to and calling suggesting that
moderation, and times of moral crisis, will not solve the moral crisis. i realize that my statement could be misconstrued as meaning that in moderation is the better approach. deration is the better approach, and therefore trumpian moderation is fine. that is not the case. back to martin luther king for a moment, one of his informal teachers, someone from whom he learned, was able -- was a woman by the name of lillian smith. a white woman from the united states itself. first of all, the fact she was a woman, defectors white, and she taught him how to stanford's rights as a lack man, puts a lie to the politics of identity.
a tangent.that as regardless of our skin color, gender, sexuality, nationality, able to put ourselves in the shoes of the other. we are able to empathize regardless of the identity we carry. martin smith taught luther king, among other things, that there is a difference between a destructive extremist and take constructive extremist. -- and all shet meant by constructive extremist was somebody who, like professor dish on a, was willing to speak truth to the power of society to change andds offer a constructive way for how to get to that change. so, even calling somebody like
that an extremist in today's context would sound scary and misleading. but what she was pointing out is that you have the choice of silence or you have the choice of becoming vocal. and if you become vocal, make no mistake, you will be deemed and many moderates, and just as i have been likened to osama bin laden by many moderates. i have been told i am the liberal version of osama bin laden, which makes me wonder, when was the last time i ordered lanes into buildings. you know, -- i ordered airplanes into buildings. you know, when we talk about change and positive change in articular, moderation is
destination is both beautiful and an islamic. it is a process and a means it is what lillian smith called walking like a chicken down the middle of the road and being won over by vehicles coming from both sides. you have to stand for something. again,is is why, professor, with every shred of respect that i can muster, i wholeheartedly embrace your point that moderation is what we , but i suggest to you that in order to get there we need tension. we need people to get out of their comfort sounds and begin thinking and engaging. to be an uglyve engagement, but it does have to be engagement. in most people will not engage
and lust they are somehow riled up to do so. -- and some people will not engage unless they are somehow wild up to do so. up to do so.iled they are exchanging platitudes about love and common ground, but they are not challenging what it is in our own believe system that is different from the others and why. in whether we need to change ourselves in order to get to that point of social cohesion and coexistence. so, tension is key. but it can be a creative tension , not a destructive one. mohammad: i believe in interfaith dialogue because i have seen there is a log of
ignorance about the other. we as muslims do not know much about christianity and judaism. christians do not know much about islam. i was at the jewish university couple years ago, a seminar about anti-semitism. i was the only arab or palestinian are muslim at that meeting in which he was arguing koran was anti-somatic. he was bringing versus saying that the koran describes muslims so jews as pigs and apes and i did notked, because think the koran does that. i had not, at that time, read the koran. , when it was my turn, i actually challenged him, saying that i do not believe the
crown does that. and so he got upset, lefty room. he left. but then he came back. he went to his office, to get the koran, went and bought the copy from the store and came back and said, may i read to you the versus? in t read two verses which said --t it god -- that said god god punished the sabbath breakers by making them into apes and monkeys and pigs. swine or something. and so i said, but this is not about jews. this is about god punishing sabbath breakers. is punish. breaker it is a punishment, not about the jews as a religion. there are many verses there that are also misunderstood. so basically he came and sat
next to me and i whispered to him, i hope this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. but the point, my point, is that interfaith dialogue helps to clear the air, helps to actually explain. helps us understand. and, that is where i favor or support interfaith dialogue. average: let me ask you about a different grenade you put into the conversation earlier. about culture. suggested if i understood you correctly, that the problem we are focusing on is deeply connected to culture, not religion. that this has a lot to do with the arab culture, not so much how one reads the holy books or what is in the
koran, but culture. thenwant to ask you, and ask you, mohammed, if it is culture so much, why not focus on culture? why focus on islam? why not take on arab culture question mark into to you, mohammed, is this right? is this really not so much a problem of how we interpret the holy books, but this is arab culture. this is a problem that a slim at it to the 300 million arabs in this world, not the 1.345 muslims of this world. it is a particularly arab problem? ad: first of all, i want to contest the premise of the question you asked. that it is limited to 300 orlion not the one point to 1.3 billion muslims. the problem we are facing is
that arab college has colonized the faith of islam. this is a problem for all -- the arab culture has colonized the faith of islam. so this is a problem for all. even indonesia, once a haven of pluralism and tolerance, has, in recent years, become the of,pient, the reservoir, you know, billions of dollars of the tro-dollars from the arabian then saliva. llars from the arabian insula. especially where wealthy heir of tourists go. women and those parts of indonesia are now forced to wear a --.
ae point is there is colonization happening, but moderates do not speak about arab culture colonization of islam, they speak only about american or israeli or sometimes a indian colonization of what are considered muslim lands. why, youis, again, know, moderation in theory is a beautiful thing, but in practice is actually a very narrow and reclaimingroach to the better angels of islam. not, then, tackle culture and set of religion? that is precisely what i do it my work. but then, why the trouble with islam instead of the trouble with arab culture? well, in part as muslims
ourselves have an twine to arab the practice of islam. so often muslim women outside of the middle east properd that the only way of presenting herself as a muslim woman is to wear a pre-islam medicare arab garment jab and sometimes a veil. so, at the end of the day, we have to separate culture from religion and then, in doing so, take the best of both. robert: ok. mohammed? mohammed: in the culture, in a sense is that arab culture or is another? the arabs have the problem of
islam because of the fact that islam, the koran, is in arabic. so they want to apply the language, and as a result they impose their terminology or understanding or understanding of the crown. the problem is that -- or understanding of the koran. the problem is extremism and moderation. you were talking about what has happened in these countries regarding imposing. i think this is related to the extremist of the reformers, such different types. try to impose this extremism. it has nothing to do with being
arab or being within the arab culture. university, a professor tells students who are poor, unless you wear this fail you will not get a scholarship. so the scholarship is linked to what you wear. il,unless you wear this ve you will not get the scholarship. they have shifted because there is a scholarship, not because it is what they want to wear. what because of the family, or the girls are doing it because the others are doing it, the oppression. i would say that i do not know if it is an honor culture. it is a backward culture. it is a traditional culture, yes. but arab? i do not think so. i would not put it on there because it is within the other culture, you would find those
also extremely modern as to have studied in the west or who are promoting values that are taken from the west or believed in the west. robert: ok. let's open the floor to questions. a fascinating exchange. please feel free to identify yourselves when i call on you. try to keep your question brief. we will start over here. >> greeting. have issue with professor dajani's words because it is not uncommon to take words out of the koran and say this means this and so on. it is wonderful, but not
practical because in reality you can feel a lot of other ideas from extremists who emphasize ,he radical part of the koran the anti-democratic parts of the koran, and the ayatollah koran and the part against women or other people. basically, it is not a good idea to do the literal reading of say islam isr to moderate. it does not work. it has not worked so far. i think the better idea, maybe, is to take a page from the christian reformation. although i agree with the professor that each culture is different and all that. but what happened in christian reformation, they distanced themselves from the literal reading of the text. of intention.
in islam, it is 700 years ago, the ideas. to berpose of which was the intention of the law-given. not the word of the law-giver. robert: can we ever, by focusing on the literal reading, reach the goal you want to attain or do we have to transcend bad into -- transcend that into a higher level of trying to understand the intention. mohammed: the intention is humanity, the good of humanity. readingy, if you are the koran with that intention, you will read a verse that will say cut the hand of the thief a hand then you will miss that it says, but if he repents, then god is forgiving. so basically, if you want to take the first part and cut his
hand, or you want to take that part figuratively speaking and say, how do i cut it not by really cutting, or most people would be handicapped. as a result, it would be a problem in society. that by teaching him a profession. in this way, i cut his hand. basically, it is whether you read that verse with a human eye, with a human heart, or read that you read it with the heart of stone. in this way, you can cut the hand or do whatever you want. and that is what i believe the difference between the moderate and the extremist. the extremist read it with a -- the extremist read it with a heart of stone. the moderate reads it with a heart of flesh. so basically, that is what the
koran is all about. that is what islam is all about. that is what all religion is all about. had: let me admit the professor is talking about his interpretation. and yet, if we look at the koran literally, you know, one of the things i have been so surprised over the years, and researching and studying the koran, is that it does differ from the bible. both the old and new testaments in significant ways. one of those ways is, as i mentioned in the guardian video, the koran, taken literally, contains three times as many verses calling on muslims to and analyze and reflect and re-thinker rather than monfils submit. and so on that basis alone, if more muslims,many took seriously the very book that they claim to be inspired
by, we would see the kind of ajaniior that professor d is talking about. instead what we get from many thingse muslims is these like, if you kill a human being, ofis like killing all mankind. sorry, that is not what it says. it's as if you kill a human being, it is like killing all of mankind unless you're killing that human being as punishment or other villainy in the land. in other words, if you consider a american boots on the ground in a muslim land as being that clause,n within that passage of the aran, gives the extremist loophole. give us the extremist and escape
hatch. and so, once again, you know, sanitizinglot of going on and what the cron says. says. any person who reads the koran and seeks to be co-hand about it will be forced to choose. i cherry pick. cherry pick. i would argue with the greatest of respect, that professor dajan i cherry picks. beingestion is not who is true to the koran. the koran is an incredibly complicated document. the question is who is being honest about their selectivity theyo what end are selecting. i am selecting in order to bring angels of islam.
in, if that forces me to cherry tick, i plead guilty. -- and, if that forces me to i plead guilty. mohammed, it depends on how you -- mohammed: it depends on how you pick. lord'sse is like the prayer. seven verses. the last verses say, guide as to the right path, not the path of those whom you have west. not those whom with you are angry. when i learned that, i thought those who were blessed were pious. god was angry with those who do not believe in him. between. in the hypocrites. now it is being translated or arerpreted to say blessed
the muslims. god is angry with the jews. the christians. same thing with the verse. we have created a moderate nation. a middle ground nation. and a word is interpreted to be moderate, the radicals interpreted to mean there is no middle ground in islam. you are either right or wrong. it, this verse means that jews who areetween madeets and christians who their profit a god. so you must go beyond cherry picking and go into the text itself and try to misinterpret them put down interpretation into the text in order to make it look like a clash of
civilization. islam is better than others. the koran meant islam to include christianity and judaism because it meant believing in god and worshiping god. surrendering to god. the radicals would say no. islam means we have to erase all other religions were all other religions have to convert to become muslims. they are playing with the text much more. are islamat they cherry-picking, but also more dangerous as the interpretation. >> i am formally with the defense department. issues in strategic
the battle of ideas in the air about world. my question to you, and there is a lot of debate and controversy, most of the audience here is not muslim. i hear about interpretation of the koran not being muslim, it is interesting. fori could see an argument it and against people like me and governments that are not muslim, so to speak, not involving themselves in this discussion. it has to come from the muslim world. a good friend of mine who is a archbishop and express cappelli this has to bed -- he was an archbishop in and plan church said this has to be muslim. what role can the non-muslim world play in the debate you are both deeply involved in? not only in terms of non-muslims in general, i mean government. i mean think tanks like the
washington institute, other think tanks and so on. what role should non-muslims play in the debate you are both, frankly, risking your lives in what you are doing. love it: good question. -- robert: good question. myhad: i mentioned in informal -- formal remarks that supporting dissidents within the muslim world is key. to two things. one to their survival, and two, bringing to this part of the world and interpretations of islam that typically media will not offer. it is through the support of ofse with dissenting points view that we will ultimately, i
think, understand there is truly diversity within the world of islam. and, it is not like muslims understand us yet. many reforms, particularly of a certain generation. i am talking about elders. to theto believe that new generation has a different point of view are different interpretations and many, as i mentioned in my story about the kids in detroit, are afraid to fork their interpretations fear of being stigmatized and ostracized and their families, more to the point, being pilloried for doing so. so, by bringing to this part of the world those voices that offers something fresh and different and giving them places to do their scholarship, giving them platforms to express themselves and creating, at
,niversities and other places even hospitals, for example, as muslim chaplains, reformist muslim chaplains, creating positions for them to begin to engage conversations and engage in conversations with muslims and non-muslims, i believe it is the kind of soft power that america, you know, has the genius and the resources to, you know, to offer -- too often to the world. i might add, by the way, it would not hurt to bring some reformist with chaplains to prisons as well. robert: thank you. that role still non-muslims play? see three entities.
government, civil society, think tanks. believe it isi the role of governments really to put a lid on extremism islamophobia, is anti-semitism, whatever type. the government should actually not allow this because it poisons the environment. then, there are the think tanks, whose role is to be a forum for such a dialogue in order to build bridges between civilizations and religions and communities. and then there is the civil society, which should actually, within the community, try to be open to various religions. that is why we are starting in -- to openouse that
it for christians, muslims, jews, whatever, to do entities there. in berlin there is a mosque, church, synagogue being built where people can go and pray. that i believe is very important in order to build ridges between the communities to help them to understandand this is what america's all about. multiculturalism. multi-pluralism. in this way, what we need to do is not look at islam is the enemy but as extremists within islam. so many incidents have happened before what happened in san bernardino, when not committed to muslims, but i christians walking into a church and killing.
oh, if it is a christian is a murder. the first time it happened when a muslim did it, that it is islam and the religion. so, rather they ana it is an extremist, similar things have been done before. people are being, instead of looking at the problem about 50,000-100,000 as the enemy who are the extremists within islam, they want to portray islam, which has 1.6 billion, as the enemy. in set of taking islam as an ally and order to fight this war of extremism and terrorism, so this war of enmity and hatred, they want to make islam as part of that. so that pleases people like ice is very much because they claim they represent islam when they do not. isis very much
because they claim they represent islam one they do not. that is part of the big problem we are facing and that is why any statements like trump and al hopefuls arei not helpful, because they are bringing the evil in the people rather than the good. : i think mohammed and i agree on far more than might have ran suggested -- and suggested this afternoon. suggested this afternoon. the reason i can remain a muslim with integrity is this. we as muslims are to worship one god. pointed -- not self-appointed ambassadors. it is god who guides us, not
people. worship onere to god and not self-appointed ambassadors. to believe as if we -- behave as if we have a monopoly on truth and values. it is a spiritual duty for muslims to help build societies in which we can disagree with one another in peace and with civility. because anything less means that somebody is playing god. and so here is the delicious, perhaps paradoxical bottom line. us toping one god obliges defend human liberty. maybe that makes me a moderate. maybe that makes me a reformer. but what i do know is that it makes me a friend and admirer of mohammed dajani. mohammed: and me the same.
get anyit does not better than that. this is fascinating. i am quite grateful for the exchange of views. thank you all. >> tonight on c-span, that defense secretary ashton carter -- the british defensive defense secretary holding a joint meeting. then donald trump. and, martin o'malley visiting a mosque. on the next washington journal, jim kessler of third way will discuss the 1994 federal assault weapons ban and its effect on the current debate over gun control. then the congressional stalemate on dozens of tax picks set to expire at the end of the year. and the deputy editor of climate wire reports on the climate change talks.
7:00ngton journal, live at a.m.. >> you come into this house and there's so much to do. there is so much coming at you that there is no time to think or reflect. >> a high. we're digging soil because we are about to plant a garden. >> i will not be satisfied until every military spouse who has -- once a job as one. >> at the end of the day, my most important title is still mom and -- mom-in-chief. obama became the first african-american first lady when her husband was elected president. her focus has been on social issues such as poverty, education, health and living. launching the let's move initiative addressing childhood
obesity. michelle obama, this sunday night. "first ladies: influence and image." sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span three. >> today, defense secretary ashton carter met with michael fallon to discuss cooperation in and iraq against isis and syria. afterwards, they spoke with reporters for about 20 minutes. >> the united kingdom has been a strong member since the beginning of the campaign. significant contributions to air operations including strikes against isis in iraq.
and reconnaissance missions in both iraq and syria. partners have provided robust support, advising, assisting, and building capacity of local forces taking the fight to isil in both iraq and syria. as we put a increased pressure and intensify airstrikes against isil's financial infrastructure across syria, we appreciate and to the world appreciates the uk's contribution to this necessary and critical mission. with strong allies like the united states and the united kingdom need to bear every instrument of power against this barbaric foe, we will defeat isil and we will ensure they stay defeated. our work together extends far the middle east.
we must continue writing the new playbook. one that includes preparations to encounter new challenges like cyber and hybrid warfare. we must continue to adjust our posture and presence in response to russian aggression and support our allies. last month, the u.k. released its strategic defense and security review. a blueprint for british priorities through 2020. it establishes a strategic framework. on powerorated focus projection, innovation, and deterrent's. a series ofs decisions that will allow the u.k. to continue to play a leading role in strengthening the international order in
confronting security challenges across the road. at the department of defense, we welcome the strategic depth and insight of this review and look forward to working with our british allies to make it a reality. i want to commend the united kingdom for making sure these problems -- plans are resourced for deciding early two continue meeting at the pledge allies made in wales to contribute 2% of adp to defense. targets matters greatly to the nato alliance and send is our commitment to ensuring the sums are invested as strategically and deliberately as possible. with our two military renewed focus on improving the operation and interoperability of forces, we will support our common defense by making sure our common citizens get the most for every dollar and pound spent. the united states values the and cover meant close,
during, and global defense partnership. today and in the days to come, we will continue to strengthen collaboration and leverage our capabilities to engage the world as strong, spoiled, allies. >> i am delighted to be here with secretary carter and i want to thank him for his typically generous welcome this afternoon. we have been reviewing the campaign strategy to degrade and -daesh.isil our decision was to extend
strikes as secretary carter said. we have already been playing the second biggest part against these terrorists and iraq. providing a large percentage of the reconnaissance and up to one third of the precision type strike capability. we can now treat this as one theater and use our expertise in its isis-daesh heartland. we have more than doubled the number of missions we fly by day and night. there will be plots against both of our countries as we take the fight to iso- -- isil-daesh. just like the ones in san bernardino. make ourdoes not homeland security and he was.
that is a counsel of despair and wrong. we must defend our values as much as our streets and remember these people do not hate us because of what we do, but because of who we are. the investments unannounced and our strategic defense review, along with our decision to increase defense spending every year, will deliver bigger, stronger defense said that the united kingdom can continue to play leading role in global defense and security. the united states remains our closest strategic partner and wrubel worked together to large global stability, to get to our shared interest, and to deliver prosperity for our people. major defense projects such as f-35 demonstrate our long-term commitment to the u.k.-u.s. defense relationship. this enhances that with new priorities. not least the doubling of our
drone fleet. secretaryeed with carter today that we will strengthen the way our bilateral relationship is governed and nowct it on equipment we want to take a more structured, program-based approach so that our governments and defense industries can deliver these capabilities against some cannding timelines and build on our existing strong industrial collaboration. the strength and the depth of our political resolve are deeply outlined national security and defense strategies and the extraordinary courage and skill of our armed forces add up to a relationship unlike any other. with that, happy to take questions. mr. secretary, considering
some of the criticisms that came up at the hearing the other day and the fact that president obama will be here in the pentagon to discuss the fight , shouldisis on monday the american people take this as a suggestion that there is a need to invigorate or change if not the strategy, the implementation of the strategy against isis in iraq and syria? secretary, earlier today, our russian president vladimir putin said again that he would like closer coordination with the west in syria what do you think of that? do you think there should be some greater ordination up with russia as more of the strikes continue?
sec. carter: well, with respect to the first part, we are taking a number of steps. and i described a number of them earlier this week. and we intend to take more, to strengthen the execution of our strategy and hasten the defeat of isil. and the president will be here in the pentagon on monday, and he'll hear not only from us here in the defense department, his senior commanders in the field, about the military dimensions of the campaign to defeat isil, but also this is a national security council meeting. so the secretary of state and representatives of the intelligence community, law enforcement, homeland security, all of the parts that we know are necessary to protect our people, and strike at our enemies, will be involved. and i expect him both to hear what we're d